Legal Opinion

Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 20, 1984No. C4-82-1396PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PETERSON, Justice.

This is a personal injury action brought by appellant, Ward Hauenstein, seeking damages for a serious injury sustained to one of his eyes while using Loctite Retaining Compound No. 35 (RC-35), an adhesive produced by respondent, The Loctite Corporation.1 Hauenstein alleged that Loctite was strictly liable and liable in negligence solely for failure to warn Hauenstein that RC-35 contained acrylic acid and could cause blindness if it contacted eye tissue. The trial court submitted both theories to the jury. The jury made the following findings by special verdict:

1. Was…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Lesmeister v. DillySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  2. Jacobs v. Rosemount Dodge-Winnebago SouthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. Flom v. FlomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  4. Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  5. Seivert v. BassSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. Craft v. PeeblesHawaii Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  4. Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  5. George v. Estate of BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006

68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API